Jacob Baker v. Registration and Election, No. 13-1121 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1121 JACOB BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REGISTRATION AND ELECTION OFFICE; SHERIFF STEVE LOFTIS; FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; BARACK OBAMA, Democratic Party; JOE BIDEN; OPRAH WINFREY; MARK STANFORD; PRINCE CHARLES, London the British; FRANCE THE COUNTRY; SADDIE HUSSAN; MITT ROMNEY, Republican Party; GARY JOHNSON, Libertarian Party; VIRGIL GOODE, Constitution Party; JILL STEIN, Green Party; MICHAEL A. BAKER; GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; GEORGE W. BUSH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:12-cv-03221-TMC) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jacob accepting the dismissing Baker appeals recommendation without prejudice the district of the his 42 court s magistrate U.S.C. judge § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). order and (2006) The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Baker that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived of appellate review by failing to file Baker specific objections after receiving proper notice. We dispense deny with contentions Baker s oral are motion argument adequately for default because presented 2 the in judgment. facts the and We legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3